Sacrifices a page on law for its own sake victims
First sub-mask sacrifices opens a case in which a victim was sacrificed, not for its own sake. Typically, case law is victim minister, but had its owner to duty.
The light beam (see Isaac Karlin), one of the most important commentators on the mask of sacrifices, discusses at length the relationship between victims and law for its own sake, and the dispute is mentioned in several places in Shas, Do staff have the intention.
And “Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, in his book on the sacrifices (Gen. rates – sacrifices, p. 41), rejects the words of the Fund Ora both hands; “Separate seemingly absolute separation between these two laws … When we talk about what we are dealing in terms of destination and purpose … We are trying to get the final stage, a Torah scroll, tzitzit, etc. … In this context we speak of law for its own sake, and This is clearly the law relating to the final character of the object … In contrast, the concept of the team have no intention at all risk refers to the end … There’s no reference to ‘what’ but the ‘why’ … Intention of the commandments related to the question of motive – what I eat matzah, is because I’m hungry or because God has commanded? Why I put the trumpet, is because I love the sound of the shofar, or perhaps because I worked the “” In other words, the name refers Lahpca law, we are interested in creating Achahpca of a divorce, a Torah or a victim. The intention commandments, however, actually refers to – its roots and character.
An interesting proposal is Abgree”aza, to speed with the Talmud. Ahgree”aza discusses the relationship between the first sub in the first chapter, and the Deputy post in the fourth chapter:
“To sacrifice Nzabah six things: to sacrifice, there sacrificed, for God’s sake, to put, to smell, to smell, and missed and shame – for sin.” Ahgree”aza claimed that opening the stethoscope sub-law deals with the name refers to an object, but the sub at the end of the fourth chapter was separated from her, since she is working intentions – the fact that the victim should be offered there is a fence Abahpca name of the victim, but a reference to the work, which will be to God.
Immaterial, wrote Ahgree”aza, is the case in which a person not because the regulation consumed. If properly because not consumed to create Ahpca intentions of the victim – set name as an immigrant or pay the owner Matachfrim definition – the victim is damaged but does not exceed the duty to the owner. But if Not because there the Lord, for individuals, etc., write add-ons (in CA DH all) does not mean delays, spelled out Ahgree”aza since the team does not have intention of hindsight. (Review continued words Ahgree”aza, Maimonides can not explain it, and went well otherwise.) Tomorrow, H, we look at another possible immaterial to both understanding the law for its own sake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbi Baruch Weintraub